I'm looking at the Zeiss Conquest for my 7mm Rem Mag in either the 3-9x40 or 3.5-10x44. My first question, is the $300 extra between the 2 scopes worth the price?

Secondly, do you feel that a 9x is plenty magnification for shots from 50 yards to 350-400 yards?

Any other recommendations? Low light performance is not too important in that if I can't clearly judge the animal I'm going to take with my binocs (Meopta 10x42), I'm not going to take him anyway. I don't squeeze off shots at dawn and dusk to walk up to a disappointment and mis-judgement.

I have the 3.5x10x50 conquest. I have the larger size simply because I have always bought the bigger size. The 3x9 will work great for what you are doing. I don't think you will be disappointed... and you will have saved enough to have your deer, or other game, processed....

I think it depends on how you hunt because a guy who is stalking needs lower power where a guy who hunts from a stand or has a solid rest can use a lot of magnification. Given my choice I would take a 4-14 or 4-16 over a 3-9 any day, because I like to get a closer look at the rack and you just cant do that at several hundred yards with 9x. I also tend to like illuminated reticles and target - tactical knobs to dial in correction for trajectory or at least a balistic reticle, some system to get on target at 400 to 600 yds.

even at 500yds a mule deer or an elk is fairly big in a scope on 9x. you get into the 14x or 16x then you have to have a side focus and thats just more garbage to screw with you when you need to be taking a shot.

I'm looking at the Zeiss Conquest for my 7mm Rem Mag in either the 3-9x40 or 3.5-10x44. My first question, is the $300 extra between the 2 scopes worth the price?

Secondly, do you feel that a 9x is plenty magnification for shots from 50 yards to 350-400 yards?

I'm in the same boat as you, trying to decide between the two. My question to everyone is if you are shooting out to 500 yards for antelope is the 3-9 still a better deal? What if the price difference was only $150? I'm looking at the rapid z 600 reticle.

even at 500yds a mule deer or an elk is fairly big in a scope on 9x. you get into the 14x or 16x then you have to have a side focus and thats just more garbage to screw with you when you need to be taking a shot.

Just a thought; Zeiss sets their parallax @ 100 yds on their non-adjustable Conquest line. At least with SF (Or AO on other brands) there is the option to take some of that parallax out for those longer shots.

even at 500yds a mule deer or an elk is fairly big in a scope on 9x. you get into the 14x or 16x then you have to have a side focus and thats just more garbage to screw with you when you need to be taking a shot.

Just a thought; Zeiss sets their parallax @ 100 yds on their non-adjustable Conquest line. At least with SF (Or AO on other brands) there is the option to take some of that parallax out for those longer shots.

yeah and as soon as you get a scope with a sf or and ao you have set up to be clear at 400 yds and the deer shows up at 25yds and by the time you adjust your scope he is gone. k.i.s.s.!!!

Alan - Sounds like you have both models. Can you elaborate on what you feel the true or noticeable difference are between the two?

I like them both very much. The models are: 3-9x40 w/Z-600 reticle and 3.5-10X44 w/ Z-Plex.

Other than the reticles and magnification range, the biggest difference between them has to do with the sight picture (sorry-don't know the technical term for this). Since they both share the same large ocular, the different eye- relief of each model gives a different sight picture. The 3-9 has 4" eye relief and a big sight picture- larger than my Elite 4200 with it's 3.3" eye relief. The 3.5-10, having a shorter 3.5" eye relief moves the ocular .5" closer to your eye, which gives it the largest sight picture I've ever seen. The difference between them would be like moving closer to the TV... or looking at a bigger monitor. The 3.5's larger sight picture in no way affects the field of view, as they appear to have the same field of view at equal power settings. I've tried to tell a difference in field of view and they are the same, to me.They are both really nice in low light, but my eyes may be too old to tell any real difference... I can see a difference between the Conquests and other brands/models I own, so I'll just say that both Conquests have about the same low-light performance... doing the math confirms what I see.

Before I got the Z600, I was resigned to losing low-light performance due to the thin reticle, but it turns out there was nothing to worry about, it works fine. If there is enough light to get the Z-Plex crosshairs on an object, I can get the Z600 on it, as well; not the ranging and holdover features, though.I recently walked around with both scopes in a full moon and could see the Z600 reticle in all but the darkest nooks and crannies. Of course, the thick outer posts of the Z-Plex were bolder and faster to get on target. I'd never hunt when it's that dark anyway, so it's no big deal for me.

There is another difference between the two scopes which has more to do with the physics of long eye relief than anything else. With all scopes, as you move your head/eye away from the direct centerline of the scopes axis, you will lose the sight picture- the scope will 'wink out'. The 3-9x40 with it's 4" eye relief will lose the sight picture (wink out) before the shorter eye relief 3.5-10. The Conquest gives you plenty of warning and the loss doesn't happen abruptly, as it does in some other very good scopes which I won't mention.

A bit off topic- I've been a handloader for years and have always had lots of different powders/bullets/primers to play with. I've had a lot of fun doing things like loading Unique in frifle calibers for a sub-velocity toy and doing things like re-swaging bullets from a different, but close caliber in order to get a weight or ogive that's unavailable normally.All that's changing since the Z600... all I've been interested in lately is having 1 load which I know inside and out and the Z600 doesn't let me down. I'm even using a heavier bullet than I ever considered before (Nosler .308 200gr. AB) because of it's superb ballistic coefficient and terminal performance.

Still the Z600 is a compromise, of sorts. There are better pure- hunting reticles, like the Z-Plex or the German #4. There are better long- range reticle schemes...maybe.The Conquest with Z600 reticle is, for me, the best true multi- purpose scope for a 'one- size- fits- all- needs' rifle (Rem 700 .30-06) that I've found. The Z600 works and works right now with no fuss or fiddlin' around under any circumstance I'm likely to encounter.

I'm starting to think that any fine reticle would do for true long range shooting as I'm starting to think that the most important thing for long distance shooting is not having a bunch of doodads in the sight picture, but instead having precise and repeatable turrets with a large adjustment range and a reticle that doesn't obscure the target. By the way, Conquests have firm, accurate and repeatable turrets... so far for me, at least.

The Conquests have plenty of elevation to reach way out there, if you want to shoot really long distance and mount them right- i.e., use a 20moa base or mount like I did with the Burris Signature rings... one can set a mount bias from 5- 30 moa with the Burris inserts.

From my experience with two Conquests, I'd say just pick the configuration that you want and go for it- you just about can't go wrong. The 3-9x40 with Z-Plex reticle is a screaming bargain.

I'm getting pretty salty with the Z600. I'll likely never take a shot at any living creature at 600 yards, but any zombies out there better not come 'round here...

I have the 3.5-10x44 I agree that the etched reticle gives great low light performance. We do not have restricted shooting hours here in New Zealand. I do not have a 3-9X40 zeiss but have several others of those dimensions and at low power I feel that the Zeiss has a slighty wider field of view. Only thing I never like about the zeiss was the plastic turret caps. One thing I have heard of is that turret errectors are not as robust as say a leupy mark 4. I have heard of several guys out here who do a lot of long range shooting and crank the dials up and down a lot that have had issues. Won't be problem unless you are planning on doing a lot of adjusting.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum